Lipshutz & Hyams!!!!!

Residents need to consider carefully the following from last night’s council meeting. In our view it encapsulates fully the hypocrisy, inconsistency, and decision making that has already been determined, despite the ongoing planning scheme review.

Item 9.1 was an application for a 7 storey and 24 dwellings in Centre Road, Bentleigh. Officers recommended 6 storeys and 22 dwellings. True to form, councillors decided that they would lop off another storey and a handful of units so that the motion was for 5 storeys and 19 dwellings. This was moved by Hyams and seconded by Lipshutz.

HYAMS: started off by saying that objectors did not attend the planning conference. Said that there is a ‘quandary’ here because ‘we have our beliefs’ about what is appropriate for Centre Road and ‘on the other hand’ there is the recent VCAT decision for 8 storeys up the road. If it wasn’t for this decision then ‘5 storeys would be pretty much a lay down misere’. So the questions is ‘do we change our opinion’ because of the VCAT decision and make a further decision based on this ‘which we think is wrong’ and ‘hope’ that VCAT ‘gets it right this time’. His motion is because he thinks that ‘five storeys is appropriate’ in Centre Road. ‘Currently’, the ‘tallest building in Centre Road is 5 storeys’. Didn’t think ‘that we should compound the mistakes made by VCAT’ which they ‘would be doing’ if a permit was granted for 7 storeys. Spoke about setbacks and car stackers and that ‘they are accepted by the government’. Thought that ‘5 storeys is reasonable’ since it ‘backs onto 4 storeys’.

LIPSHUTZ: Centre Road has got ‘3 and 4 storeys’ and even though this might look like a 3 storey from the ‘street, it is nevertheless a 7 storey building’. “I think that’s wrong’. ‘I think the appropriate level is 5 storeys’. Didn’t think that they should say that because VCAT ‘will approve it’ that they should change their minds. Thought that ‘we have to stand up for our principles and residents’ since ‘we know what we want’. ‘This council has policies and I think we have to maintain our position’ and if ‘vcat overrules us, well so be it’. ‘We have principles and we have to stand by them’ and that he thinks that ‘5 storeys is the appropriate level’.

LOBO: give the developer ‘an inch’ and he will ‘take large square metres’ to build ‘inappropriate’ buildings. Said that Mavho ‘has a uniformity of 4 storeys’ and giving this 5, then with VCAT, there is the possibility of ‘giving 9 or 10’ storeys. Residents ‘have said’ that Bentleigh is ‘completely destroyed’. Said that since the Minister ‘has asked us to review’ the planning scheme he thinks that the commercial zones shouldn’t change until the review is done. Said that ‘I have never accepted anything over 3 storeys’ and apart from the General Residential Zone, the ‘new zones don’t say that’. After ‘the destruction of Bent St and Mavho Street’, Loranne and Campbell street are now the ‘targets’ and developers have also ‘encroached East Bentleigh where there is no public transport’. This has ‘created chaos as far as traffic is concerned’. Gave examples of residents who could not get out of their driveways and ambulances could not get in. Said that councillors ‘have to look after the residents’ and that they are ‘elected not for any political party’. ‘If we are not doing this, then we had better stay home’.

PILLING: said that Hyams motion is for a main road, in a commercial zone and not residential. Thought that the ‘five storeys’ is ‘appropriate’.

HYAMS: said that Lobo implied that there weren’t 4 storey developments before the zones came in, but there were, especially in Carnegie and Murrumbeena. So he ‘hoped that people don’t draw that parallel because it wouldn’t be true’. Said that the ‘problem’ is that ‘we have policies in place’ to protect Centre Road, but VCAT ‘has suddenly started interpreting it as if we don’t’. thus ‘our policies haven’t changed but VCAT’s interpretation has changed’. Didn’t think that ‘under planning law’ council can put a ‘hold on developments’ waiting for the review. Repeated that he thought that 5 storeys ‘in commercial zones is appropriate’.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED. LOBO VOTED AGAINST

COMMENTS

The hypocrisy and inconsistency of both Hyams and Lipshutz is simply mind-boggling. Truth, consistency, and above all, integrity, goes out the window when it comes to getting their motions up. Here are some quotes that these two individuals have said in the not too distant past. Please compare their above comments with what follows –

HYAMS: Said that a problem was that if you set height limits then ‘people will build up to that height and you can’t stop them’ but if you don’t have height limits and let each application be ‘judged on its merits’ then you could get ‘better outcomes’. (6/2/2013 – ie on application for Glen Huntly Road – 6 storeys and 45 dwellings which got a permit from council.) Then post zones we get this diametrically opposed statement – Hyams – ‘The new zones are limiting development’ because of the height limits and that ‘anyone who tells you otherwise doesn’t know what they are talking about’ or ‘is deliberately seeking to mislead you’.(25/9/2014)

LIPSHUTZ

LIPSHUTZ: He also needs to be ‘practical’ in that he could ‘easily reject’ this but it will go to VCAT and they will say that ‘I haven’t turned my mind to it properly’ since he has to sit here in a ‘quasi judicial’ position and ‘working on planning laws’. These laws ‘allow this building to happen’. (on 7 storeys for Glen Huntly Road, Elsternwick – 26/11/2014)

LIPSHUTZ: said he was ‘in two minds’ on this application. First he thought ‘no’ because ‘it goes against our policy’ but after looking at the site he thinks that ‘we have policy but policy is not law’….’I don’t think we want to be hard bound by policy’. All policy does is ‘gives us a framework’ and ‘you have to look at each site individually’ (on double storey application for rear in Bolinda St., Bentleigh East – 15/11/2013)

LIPSHUTZ – Glen Eira is the first council to ‘adopt these plans’ and that’s because they have ‘vision’ and that’s because years ago Akehurst and ‘his team’ saw that ‘we neeed to have distinct areas to protect our suburbs’. Because these plans already exist they were ‘able to translate very quickly’ into the new zones ‘and that’s a credit to our officers’….The zones are ‘protecting our neighbourhood, we are protecting our municipality and that’s important’. (30/12/2014)

There are literally countless other statements we could have included in the above. Some simple questions will suffice –

How much longer will these councillors continue the sham of blaming VCAT for their inaction and lack of sound strategic planning?

How many more times will Lipshutz get up and try to warn off objectors from going to VCAT?

How many more times will half-truths be portrayed as gospel in the chamber?

And how much longer will residents put up with such self-serving incompetence, especially from these two councillors?

How much longer will these councillors continue the sham of blaming VCAT for their inaction and lack of sound strategic planning? …….. forever, victim blaming is Hyams and Lipshots stock and trade

How many more times will Lipshutz get up and try to warn off objectors from going to VCAT? ……. he will never stop this sociopathic behavior of hurting his victims

How many more times will half-truths be portrayed as gospel in the chamber? …. as many time as it takes to continually punish, residents for exsisting

And how much longer will residents put up with such self-serving incompetence, especially from these two councillors? ….. forever, not forgetting that most people have jobs where the lie and cheat their way through, it’s called being smart and getting ahead in life and winning

The quotes show me how devious these lawyers are. After all the complaining that vcat doesn’t take council policies into account when they decide on a permit to have Lipshutz go on about policy isn’t law is sickening. Hyams is no better with his views on height limits at one point and then the exact opposite when the zones have come in. They are both unfit to be councillors.

Both behave they are in ME where there
is no law and order. Residents would be fools if they vote them after being sacked from the Council in 2005 and this is the payback as both with Esakoff have been working for their own. Three wrotten apples please head to the front door.

Lipshutz is in the Goebbels school of thought as he has referred to more than once. Say something often enough and the mugs will believe you. His problem is that the tune keeps changing to fit the circumstances. Day one policy is nothing. Day two policy is everything and those bastards at vcat don’t follow policy. Day three my mate is giving out how to vote cards so policy does not exist. A true and faithful follower of born to rule and to hell with decency.

Think I agree with the notion that decisions on height limits have already been made for commercial areas. If this is indeed the case then it would signify another instance of a mock consultation with residents. The planning scheme review is still ongoing. No one as yet knows what is the preferred height that residents want across all the activity centres and whether they should even be the same. My view is that Elsternwick is not the same as Bentleigh nor the same as Carnegie. Maybe they should all be different. They could be if proper structure planning had been done. It is not appropriate for the likes of Hyams Lipshutz and Pilling to come out an talk about what they want in Centre Road and then vote on it.

Incremental creep is okay according to Hyams in what is posted. Mavho street is zoned 4 storeys so it is okay to have 5 storeys next door. That is the logic but no “confession” that it was Guy, Newton, Akehurst and Hyams who decided that Mavho should be four storeys. They could have made it three storeys or even two storeys if they wanted. The logical conclusion would be that 6 storeys can now be built next to the 5 storey one and seven storeys next to the 6 storey building.

Politics is the art of saying what people want to hear. If they are sitting in the gallery as objectors, then all the better. It sounds fantastic. Councillors looking after residents so that they hope to get a 5 storey building instead of a 7 storey building. All along the Hyams and Lipshutz of this world know full well that vcat will grant the 7 storeys not because they ignore council policies, but the exact opposite. They are enforcing council policies or no such policy exists to guide them. That is what Wynne’s letter said and he was dead right. Hyams and Lipshutz may fool some of the people some of the time but there are now enough high rise developments throughout the city to make people aware of why this is happening and who to blame. It’s not vcat. It is Newton and the rat pack of a pro development mentality that has caused so much damage that I’m not even sure it can be stopped or improved.

Lipstuff is a wheeler dealer. How much truth is there that he goes to see the sites outside his ward and that too if residents requests him. He is full of it. I wonder if he even attends planning conferances (MODERATORS: rest of sentence deleted)

I went last night to the meeting on the planning scheme review. Great turnout by residents. Lipshutz and Delahunty no show for Camden. Lobo and Sounness were there and that’s it. From what I’m told Lipshutz hasn’t shown up to one of these. Busy man.

The other thing that was said by at least two groups from the tables was that they wanted 4 storey maximum for commercial centres. The post informs us that Lipshutz and Hyams and Pilling reckon that 5 is good. One gentleman got up and said that no one has asked him about anything to do with population and heights and buildings. Someone else asked what is Glen Eira’s population target. No answers from anyone.